Would you guys consider, way into the future ofcourse, to make an "online multiplayer pokemon trading card game"?
I mean, the balance issue shouldn't be a problem, all you have to do is copy-paste whatever the original game has, so it should be somewhat easier to make than an mmo like the project you're currently working on.

I apologize if it has already been brought up, I wasn't able to find it in the search.

I know it's been some time since I've been here but :

But then, the Gym Leaders won't be the Gym Leaders of Nintendo, they'll be those of PU, and I can assure you that they plan to make it so that when you face a gym leader, you will need to show your worth to obtain your badge. At times, yes, one pokemon can go on a win streak. Say it's your starter. Now, you got half of your badges with this one pokemon. You head on to the next gym, but hey, this gym holds a type strong on your pokemon, and guess what? Your move pool just cannot take the pokemon in one hit or two, before your pokemon gets down. And then there is the balance team ensuring that any pokemon can beat any other pokemon. Well, you'll be 'blocked' on this gym leader if you're not well prepared. (You won't know which type the Leader has until you go up to him/her, well, unless someone else tells it to you.)

Yeah true, if you're stupid enough to only train one pokemon.. But as I wrote in another post, you can easily make a 3-pokemon-combo, that counters every kind of combination.  Fire-Lightning-psychic  for example... There's no combination of pokemon that can beat 3 strong pokemon of those types.. Fire is usually good at everything, but it's weak against water. Lightning beats water, but is weak against rock etc. Pyschich is great against everything, especially rock types..
So what can beat a combo like that??

My point is. In the original handheld games, If you have 6 lvl 45 pokemon against  1 lvl 55-60ish, the lvl 60 pokemon wins, because it 1shot K.O.'s everytime. It rarely even matters what types it is.. But the sum of the experience points of the one who only had 6 pokemon, is clearly larger then the sum of the guy who only trained 1 pokemon.. Is that fair? no way.
If two people have the exact same sum of exp over all their pokemon; logic dictates that, the one who distributes it evenly over the most pokemon, should have the advantage because he has more viable moves than the other. It's not hard to make one pokemon and spam 1-2 spells.
It requires much more gamesense to make great combos, and great gamesense has to be rewarded in a competitive enviroment, otherwise the game dies.
I'm a strategist, I've been playing turn-based and -RTS's my entire life. I'm not in this for the roleplaying. So I refuse to play a game where all I have to do is spam nukes without thinking. Turn-based strategi games should be mindgames!

I'm not really that into the whole roleplaying thing, I'd just like to play the game competivily.. So the house thing, do they have any practical aplicance? For example, does your pokemon get an extra boost of somekind for resting in a homely enviroment? Or maybe your own character? Rested xp has already been denied, so that's out of the picture.. so is the houses only for apperance?? it just seems a bit boring to me.. I don't see why you'd want to spend money on them unless they generate some kind of an advantage.. unless you're a roleplaying person that is.. Do you have anything in mind here? :s

You would still have to train many different kinds and types of pokemon, you couldnt just go through with 2/3 pokemon unless you only made 2/3 really strong and didnt train anything else. you would still have to train almost every time so you hvae the advantage in the gym battle, and by not know which pokemon the gym leader will b using will make it more fun and harder, because if you dont know what they will have or use you will need to train many many different kinds of pokemon.

I disagree, making combos between different kinds of pokemon will create more viable strategies. By restricting the number of pokemon you can use, all your pokemon would basicly have to be strong attacking types. If you can have 6 pokemon, as I said, you can make combos by softening up the opponent and then take it out easier.. It's one of those small things that would make the game different from the rest, by making those skills like leer and growl remotely usefull!
- a psychich and a fire and a leaf for example would counter just about anything wouldn't you say?? So why not just train those 3 exclusively if you can't use any more pokemon anyway? -If you can have more pokemon, you'd have more moves to choose from == more options == good game.

do you honestly think that a gym battle where you get to use 6 pokemon and the gym leader only has 2 pokemon is realistic? if thats the case then maybe all the gym leaders should just have 6 pokemon then. so then it still works both ways.

Okay, please don't get me started on "realistic" in a f....... pokemon game..... That's just ridiculous.. But if the gym leaders have 6 pokemon, the battle will be longer, harder, and it can have more different outcomes.. Meaning the gym leader will have more "options" on how to approach you, and yourself him aswell. 
- Also, why would the gym leader only use 2 pokemon if he has more? (Asuming he is randomly picking pokemon). Ofcourse it'd make sense if it was somekind of gym-rule, but again, I'd just prefere if you had more pokemon to choose from.. Why'd you even bother train an entire team of 6 pokemon if you can't use them all in a gym battle anyway?? -imo you should be able to use up to 6 pokemon, so you can make more different combos.. There's no one saying that YOU can't make that rule for yourself to make it "harder"/"fun" for yourself, but I just don't agree that it would be any harder, since training more pokemon takes longer than training few pokemon...

- However, I see no problem in making somekind of tournament or events where this would be implemented. I just don't like the idea in the normal gyms.

- Santa

'kay really, I'm thinking of this from my personal preference, I'm entitled to say my own opinion on how i dont like that idea, and dont call a person's comment useless because honestly i have every right to say that

But for what purpose? All you've established is bumping up the thread, even though:
A) the matter has already been settled
B) and you're not even contributing anything to the subject.

If I wanted everyones opinion without a discussion, I would've made a poll..

It's like saying "I don't want hotkeys in the game, I don't like them". - Well don't use them then, problem solved.

Why don't you just write what's on your mind? I actually want to read it, I'm not just flaming you dude. Atleast I explained why I found your comment useless, that should count for something..

Anyway, I think you guys should lock this thread, since Raikt already said it will not be implemented.
However @Amphy I think you should consider some of this when you write a post, have a purpose..

I want to be clear, that I'm not just flaming you (it's hard to tell on the internet). But  I want to say:

I'm entitled to say my own opinion on how I don't like... the way you're stating your opinion without any argumentation... because honestly I have every right to say that.

-Santa

that's basicly how it works in GTA and a little bit wow. Except, I see no reason why you'd have to be locked in one team.. You should be able to betray them (like you can in GTA, hence by killing your gang members). Otherwise you could just do what the hell you want and still be in the team...?

yeah I kinda realized that after I wrote my comment, and yet... I don't see a problem with that either xD
Donors should get benefits imo. And if it helps the developers keeping their servers running, then what's wrong with that?

I apologize but I think I'm slowly zoning in to what your thread is really about now right ??!